A Different God?

[flameburns623]

28 minutes ago, salgare said:

Actually I'm a member of the Church still officially.  I was a Fundamentalist Mormon doctrinally (still am by heart), realized I rightfully claim myself a Cultural Mormon (buried in multi-generational extended family, wife and) and after being introduced to some philosophy, realize my spiritual journey continues.

I've mentioned your avatar before (yea creepy old guy), I have a granddaughter with attributes I see in that photo.  There is something familiar there that brings a smile.  I wish you the best bluebell.  

So: a cultural Mormon whose crisis of faith carried him out of the Church spiritually and intellectually? Even though you retain formal membership in the LDS Church.

And when you refer to yourself as a 'former Fundamentalist': do you intend to imply that you were once a member of a polygamist or non-Utah LDS sect?

Or that you were a faithul, True Believing Mormon with highly literal understandings of LDS Scripture and of a sanitized, very faith-affirming LDS history?

Thanks!

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

 Mr MFBukowski:

With all due respect:

This is the same bucket of farm compost that we see on the Catholic board, where it is denied that there are distinctions between Progressive Catholics, Conservative Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics.

It is clear: those three groups (at a minimum) clearly exist, clearly profess the name of "Catholic", clearly do some or many of the things which Roman Catholics do. 

Yet they "read" Catholicism differently in many respects, live it differently, talk about it differently. and in distinctive and pretty distingishable ways.

Language is the tool we use to apprehend those distinctions, labels are the broad categories we use to help us sift through those distictive groups. 

Using labels is not inherently a bad strategy to conduct such work.

Those labels can be too specific or too broad to be useful, they can be misapplied, they can be wrong or irrelevant: but they can also be true,  germaine, a fair approximation,  accurate, useful: and provide thereby an increase of clarity.

I can't speak for MFB, but I think he is resisting the application of a label, because he feels LDS see each other as one, call each other brother and sister, etc.

Salgare's attempts to force his labels and distinctions on us shows a little disrespect on his part I believe since I think LDS reject those labels. I believe we should usually try to honor what most groups want others to call them. If gays want to be called gay and not "fags," I honor that even if I disagree with their lifestyle. I want to be called LDS Christian, and to the extent others refuse to call me that, I lose some respect for them. I think what MFB is saying is that active LDS simply view themselves as LDS or Mormon - not "nuanced Mormons" or "correlated Mormons", etc, and he is resisting Salgare's attempts to divide us or label him other than as he has requested numerous times. 

As far as I know there are no "groups" of "correlated Mormons" who meet. There are some "fundamentalist Mormons" but they belong to other churches, and in the case of the FLDS have chosen that name for themselves. Generally, the term is used to refer to polygamists. While Salgare seems to recognize this to some extent, he has still splattered the word around this site, and connected some posters to it. Again, as far as I know there are no "nuanced Mormons" who meet on their own, go to their own wards or deny the ordinances of the church or the gospel. Do members interpret the nature of God differently? - they obviously do, but to imply they are in some kind of clickish group or something is just not the case. My guess is there is no two LDS who interpret the scriptures exactly the same, so does that mean there are 15 million different types of LDS? or that there are 15 million people who have joined together as one family for Jesus Christ despite somewhat divergent views of the nature of God, the meaning of life, etc?

If Salgare wants to force his distinctions or labels on us, I can't stop him [from for example calling me "nuanced"] - it is apparently important to him - but it doesn't mean that we have to accept them, and the reader should know that we apparently don't. I haven't seen any active LDS who have anyway. The church has changed over time, so there is some validity in what Salgare says since some cling to traditional teachings, etc, but I myself as a convert, see validity in some of the early teachings which the Church seems to have abandoned. My guess is I have some aspects of each of Salgare's 3 "distinctions" so I would not fit neatly into any of his 3 supposed real groups. I don't meet with some group of "fundamental Mormons" or "correlated Mormons", etc. I go to my local ward which has old members, baby boomers, and younger members. I read the scriptures with my own family, and we routinely see things differently while reading them. My wife I would say is a TBM "follow the prophet" etc kind of member, while I would say I am a little more relaxed, and don't have a cow if one of my boys says "crap"  or doesn't want to go to church one week. I see Christ's Church as "whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church." In other words one does not have to join the LDS church to be saved, although they may not enjoy all the blessings. What I am saying is Christ seems to paint His church with a fairly broad brush, and I think Salgare's distinctions are probably fairly pointless to Him. If we consider each other as brother and sister, and treat each other as one, I believe Jesus is happy with us even if some believe in "heavenly mother" and some don't. I don't see anywhere in scripture that a belief in "heavenly mother" is required. [boy that last one might get me some flack from the "nuanced Mormons" hehe.]

[salgare]

8 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

So: a cultural Mormon whose crisis of faith carried him out of the Church spiritually and intellectually? Even though you retain formal membership in the LDS Church.

And when you refer to yourself as a 'former Fundamentalist': do you intend to imply that you were once a member of a polygamist or non-Utah LDS sect?

Or that you were a faithul, True Believing Mormon with highly literal understandings of LDS Scripture and of a sanitized, very faith-affirming LDS history?

Thanks!

I've had an on going discussion with Steve covering several threads.  My short blurb assumed you had followed some of that.  Sorry about that.  Your "Or" statement fits, I am not and was never a polygamist.  And yet If I was a young adult in the later 1800's I very likely would have been.  I believed that to obtain the Highest order of Exaltation required polygamy for example.  Another example would be I believed in Adam God (oscillations below still bring me here).  To avoid this confusion I usually use the term "old school Mormon".  In reality the Doctrines originated with JS did not change much from the end of his life until up into the 1950's.  The teachings through this time were still "fundamental" as in from JS with the only difference polygamy was still believed, just not practiced because of law.

My experience with my crisis of faith over longer periods of time tend to follow a pattern similar to:  1. Holds on tightly afraid to let go of Jesus, but doubting (or given up on) the Church. 2. Starts to doubt Jesus, but holds onto some higher God.  3. Moves agnostic 4. what the heck, take the step to atheist. And then I oscillate back to 1, rinse and repeat.

During this process there remained a fear to even read about or approach the agnostic level.  But when I did I learned a bit about morals, secular humanism and philosophy, which I believe is what the Givens movement is about, all of a sudden opening up the previous steps in a whole new light allowing for many more options and directions for personal spiritual growth.

I'm still oscillating from agnostic to feeling like the spirit leads me here as somewhat mentioned.  But now that the humanistic (agnostic) extreme of the spectrum is no longer something to fear, but something very exciting to explore, I no longer need to feel embarrassed about the oscillating.  Just part of my journey and experience I suppose.

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

Salgare's agenda is to get my children and especially my grandhchildren out of the Mormon Church before they are indoctrinated into yet another generation controlled by the corporate (apostate) Church.

Now how could anyone possibly see that as having any anti-Mormonism in it, anywhere?

 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

...

I want to be called LDS Christian, and to the extent others refuse to call me that, I lose some respect for them.

...

I don't see anywhere in scripture that a belief in "heavenly mother" is required. [boy that last one might get me some flack from the "nuanced Mormons" hehe

Might I ask why you would like to be called LDS Christian and how long have you been in the Church?

You do realize that one of the September 6 was excommunicated for teaching about a Mother in heaven, right?

[Vance]

22 hours ago, salgare said:

1. Are you clear and understand what MFB wishes for and works for the Church to become?

Nope.  And I am not worried about it either.

2. Do you believe there is no absolute or external Truth?

Nope.  I don't think the MFB is claiming that either.  I think what he is saying is that in our current condition there is no way to know what they are.

Take the time to read the threads linked upthread for Steve to see that you are mistaken here.

 

Quote

I could look for the specifics, but its not worth my time for you.

If it isn't worth your time to provide specifics, then it isn't worth my time reading the thread links you provided and formulating a response.

3. Are you familiar with relativism and pragmatism?

Nope.

Take the time to read the threads linked upthread for Steve to see that you might want to rethink your answer to question 1.

 

Quote

I could look for the specifics, but its not worth my time for you.

If it isn't worth your time to provide specifics, then it isn't worth my time reading the thread links you provided and formulating a response.

4. Do you believe there is NO doctrine or orthodoxy in the Church?

Define "doctrine". 

Fundamentalism as JLHPROP would teach.

I don't know what that is.  Why don't you spell it out for me?

We believe in orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.

Please be specific on who exactly is "we".

Me and my three friends.   And YES!  I have friends.

5. Do you believe that all that is involved in the above questions is being reviled by God to the FP to be distributed to the members?  If so, why are these concepts not taught at GC?

God hasn't revealed to me what He has reviled or is currently reviling or what He will yet revile.

I'm confused by your answer.  Declarations of doctrine, orthodoxy, orthopraxy etc. for the Church would be expected to come through the Prophet not you, right?

I think it is you that is reviling, not God.

 

 

[RevTestament]

1 minute ago, salgare said:

Might I ask why you would like to be called LDS Christian and how long have you been in the Church?

You can probably find that about 20-30 posts ago if you search my posts. I have been a member of the Church since I was 13 or 40 years ago although I have had periods of inactivity. 

The main issue I have with being called Mormon is that the name becomes "Mormon Church" a lot, and Christ doesn't seem to appreciate His church being named after a man. Also personally I prefer LDS Christian for several reasons you will find in that post.

Quote

You do realize that one of the September 6 was excommunicated for teaching about a Mother in heaven, right?

Nope, although I think I have probably heard it. Couldn't tell you a single detail. The church doesn't teach it, and it is ok with me if they don't want others teaching it. If they want to believe that on their own, I would say their salvation is not threatened as long as they don't believe in any God before the Most High, and they believe in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ as our Savior. I personally have issues with that belief. The scriptures only speak of our mother as the Church. This woman even brought forth the man child, Jesus. Rev 12. Since it is not revealed in scripture, I don't believe anyone is bound to such a belief. I have never received any sort of personal revelation about it. It also seems to contradict Revelation 21:7 which mentions no "mother" in the process of becoming a son.

 

As for your belief about polygamy, there is also no scripture saying temporal polygamy is necessary to be exalted. The best you have are some statements by BY and some repeaters. JS inferred it, but I haven't found where He said it was "necessary." I believe I will show it is not. It is necessary to do what God commands, but I don't think you can show that God commands it of you.

[salgare]

28 minutes ago, Vance said:

 

Those quotes were not to you and I don't appreciate you misquoting me in this way.  I can see from your other answers you have no desire for discussion only for mockery.

[igonzals]

I have read from page 3 to 10 and I sincerily think the main theme about God itself is gone. You are talking about what kind of source explain Mormon doctrine more officially or gets the Church position, now about Heavenly Mother, etc.

With all due respect, are there posibilities to return to the "Diferent God" topic? It seems to me so important. I have read in first pages some very interesting arguments.

[salgare]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Nope, although I think I have probably heard it. Couldn't tell you a single detail. The church doesn't teach it

Actually it's the correlated gospel that does not teach it.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women.¹ The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.² "

Perhaps you should spend some time with those essays we hear so much about.

https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng&_r=1

Oh and remember there is no difference between oldschool, correlated, and the philosophies of men doctrine (or lack there of) in the Mormonism.

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by salgare

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, salgare said:

Actually it's the correlated gospel that does not teach it.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and women.¹ The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.² "

Perhaps you should spend some time with those essays we hear so much about.

https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng&_r=1

Oh and remember there is no difference between oldschool, correlated, and the philosophies of men doctrine (or lack there of) in the Mormonism.

 

You can get all angry and smart allecky if you want, but I have already plainly said the teachings have changed. I don't care if you consider that correlated or nuanced. I have stated my belief, and I admittedly don't always believe the "official line." Obviously, you don't either. My belief won't change by reading some essays or speeches. I alone am responsible for my belief, and am prepared to live the consequences for my testimony. 

May God bless you Salgare. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by RevTestament

[Steve Noel]

Even though this thread went of the tracks a long time ago, I thought I would share this interesting statement from Robert Millet. In his book The Mormon Faith he writes:
 

Quote

"The continuing growth and appeal of the LDS Church cannot be explained wholly by pointing to "the good life" practiced by the members of the Church. Doctrine is a significant part of the religion of the Latter-day Saints, and very often theology is what strikes a consonant cord in the minds and hearts of interested people. Further, Latter-day Saints believe strongly that their style of life grows out of their theology; we cannot really understand why they do what they do or why they are what they are until we understand what they believe." (viii)

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Might I ask why you would like to be called LDS Christian and how long have you been in the Church?

You do realize that one of the September 6 was excommunicated for teaching about a Mother in heaven, right?

You do realise that that's a grotesque distortion of what actually happened, don't you?

[salgare]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You can get all angry and smart allecky if you want, but I have already plainly said the teachings have changed. I don't care if you consider that correlated or nuanced. I have stated my belief, and I admittedly don't always believe the "official line." Obviously, you don't either. My belief won't change by ready some essays or speeches. I alone am responsible for my belief, and am prepared to live the consequences for my testimony. 

May God bless you Salgare. 

I'm not angry Rev.  I'm sorry I got a bit snarky.  You were pretty abrasive yourself informing me of my mistakes in trying to put down labels and cause separation, which is not my intention at all.  Oh and that essay was added to the Church web site, by the Church under the direction of the FP on 23 Oct 2015. 

Thus unless you are implying that the Brethren have changed the doctrine since then, it is only with those who declare there is no doctrine that there is any change.

I'm not making a judgement on any of these groups, I only want to be able to label them and refer to them in discussion.  I'm not sure why everyone gets so uptight about that.  Here is an example:

In the early Church a Mother in Heaven was a well known doctrine.  During the correlated years this doctrine fell out of sight because of the simplifying of the gospel for easier world wide printing of manuals etc.  Many never knew it even existed.  At one point some where even punished for teaching it. In the early 2000's there was a new philosophical movement in the Church that held if you like the concept of a Mother in Heaven great, it not also great, as there is NO official doctrine on this topic or any other topic to restraint the member.

 

eta:

Poor Russell, only ever able to make statements of denial ... As the old Wendy's granny used to say "where's the beef"?

Still waiting for you to give answers to those Givens questions.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by salgare

[Okrahomer]

14 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Even though this thread went of the tracks a long time ago, I thought I would share this interesting statement from Robert Millet. In his book The Mormon Faith he writes:
 

 

I very much identify with Professor Millet's observation.  LDS doctrine speaks to my soul--it makes spiritual sense to me.  It inspires me to love God and to be a better person.  It helps me understand who I am and how I "fit" into God's plan.

[salgare]

3 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I very much identify with Professor Millet's observation.  LDS doctrine speaks to my soul--it makes spiritual sense to me.  It inspires me to love God and to be a better person.  It helps me understand who I am and how I "fit" into God's plan.

You do realize there are a few on this board that insist there is no doctrine right?

[flameburns623]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Now how could anyone possibly see that as having any anti-Mormonism in it, anywhere?

 

I have to concur.

On the one hand I wanted to be clear on where salgare himself was coming from. I sensed, and his self-description of his faith pilgrimage confirms, that he perhaps deserves a bit more compassion than many are willing to grant him. (There seem to be several like him here, walking wounded in the battle for faith). 

On the other hand, unless salgare wants to "rescue" his family from the Church because he knows them to be suffering at the hands thereof, he needs to leave them alone.

If they are happy, if the Scriptures, ordinances, and worship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--or of the Ethical Society, or of the Church of Set, for that matter--then he needs to let them be.

Allow them to work out their happiness in their own way. 

Edited April 12, 2016 by flameburns623

[Russell C McGregor]

13 minutes ago, salgare said:

Poor Russell, only ever able to make statements of denial ... As the old Wendy's granny used to say "where's the beef"?

Nobody was "excommunicated for teaching about a Mother in heaven." That is a standard anti-Mormon falsehood. The couple in question (there were two of them) were excommunicated for advocating direct prayer and worship of a Mother in heaven.

Even you should be able to tell the difference.

13 minutes ago, salgare said:

Still waiting for you to give answers to those Givens questions.

Sorry Sal, but since I didn't raise Givens, I'm not obligated to address any questions you may have about him.

The CFR rule only applies to the poster who makes a claim. It's not a license for you to demand that we all jump when you bark.

[Okrahomer]

27 minutes ago, salgare said:

You do realize there are a few on this board that insist there is no doctrine right?

Hi Salgare:  Yes.  I've followed some of the discussions about that here, and it doesn't bother me.  LDS doctrine and teaching--as I understand it--makes sense to me.  It still brings me happiness and inspires me to be a better person.  Do you want to talk me out of that?  Why would you want to do that? 

By the way:  it won't work.

[Vance]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Those quotes were not to you and I don't appreciate you misquoting me in this way.  I can see from your other answers you have no desire for discussion only for mockery.

I used the quote function or did a direct copy/paste, so in NO WAY were you misquoted.

So, mockery, (if that is what I am doing) is ok for thee but not for me.   Got it.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

I'm not angry Rev.  I'm sorry I got a bit snarky.  You were pretty abrasive yourself informing me of my mistakes in trying to put down labels and cause separation, which is not my intention at all. 

I am glad. I hope to see you around Salgare. Differences of opinion on doctrine, etc can sometimes get a bit hot, and that is not my intention either. I am plainly not the "typical Mormon" and I enjoy sharing my views, and appreciate the views of others. I just feel you are sometimes a bit pushy about your label thing, and would like to see you acknowledge the wishes of others. I am not saying your are wrong about the differences you see, but perhaps you should be more friendly in the manner in which you make your assertions. The way you come off appears to be a bit divisive. 

Quote

Oh and that essay was added to the Church web site, by the Church under the direction of the FP on 23 Oct 2015. 

Thus unless you are implying that the Brethren have changed the doctrine since then, it is only with those who declare there is no doctrine that there is any change.

i am not implying anything about doctrine. My doctrine is to follow scripture and the will of the Lord as best I can. The "moving doctrine" of the church doesn't concern me too much. It apparently bothers you more than it does me.
 

Quote

I'm not making a judgement on any of these groups, I only want to be able to label them and refer to them in discussion.  I'm not sure why everyone gets so uptight about that. 

Here is an example:

In the early Church a Mother in Heaven was a well known doctrine.  During the correlated years this doctrine fell out of sight because of the simplifying of the gospel for easier world wide printing of manuals etc.  Many never knew it even existed.  At one point some where even punished for teaching it. In the early 2000's there was a new philosophical movement in the Church that held if you like the concept of a Mother in Heaven great, it not also great, as there is NO official doctrine on this topic or any other topic to restraint the member.

eta:

Poor Russell, only ever able to make statements of denial ... As the old Wendy's granny used to say "where's the beef"?

Still waiting for you to give answers to those Givens questions.

Take a look at what you just did - you are trying to rub it in Russell's face - doesn't it occur to you that is why "everyone gets so uptight?"

I'm sure they feel that is the next step after you have finished applying your labels to everyone...

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

 

 Mr MFBukowski:

With all due respect:

This is the same bucket of farm compost that we see on the Catholic board, where it is denied that there are distinctions between Progressive Catholics, Conservative Catholics, Traditionalist Catholics.

It is clear: those three groups (at a minimum) clearly exist, clearly profess the name of "Catholic", clearly do some or many of the things which Roman Catholics do. 

Yet they "read" Catholicism differently in many respects, live it differently, talk about it differently. and in distinctive and pretty distingishable ways.

Language is the tool we use to apprehend those distinctions, labels are the broad categories we use to help us sift through those distictive groups. 

Using labels is not inherently a bad strategy to conduct such work.

Those labels can be too specific or too broad to be useful, they can be misapplied, they can be wrong or irrelevant: but they can also be true,  germaine, a fair approximation,  accurate, useful: and provide thereby an increase of clarity.

 

These are differences in intellectual maturity, according to the Perry Scheme.

What religion you live by and where you are on the Scheme are independent variables. https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

Edited April 12, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You can see the garden of Eden story literally, allegorically, or both at once but the important question is whether or not you find the story relevant and important in your life.

Finding it important is what makes one a member, not how one interprets it. Catholics of all stripes believe in the Eucharist, Mormons of all stripes do not.

That's why these categories are false distinctions.

It's a simple point, I suppose one finds it confusing or obvious. There is not much I can do for those who do not see it as obvious.

[mtomm]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can see the garden of Eden story literally, allegorically, or both at once but the important question is whether or not you find the story relevant and important in your life.

Finding it important is what makes one a member, not how one interprets it. Catholics of all stripes believe in the Eucharist, Mormons of all stripes do not.

This is so nice to see.  I wish we felt more comfortable teaching this in church and to the youth.  My newly adult daughter feels quite disappointed that I don't believe the way they taught her in Seminary.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

In the early Church a Mother in Heaven was a well known doctrine.  During the correlated years this doctrine fell out of sight because of the simplifying of the gospel for easier world wide printing of manuals etc.

So are you asserting, for example, that the Gospel Principles manual -- which you have elsewhere in this forum characterised as junior high school-level 'milk' owing to correlation, and which the Church uses to instruct all of its adult converts and returning members -- at some point stopped teaching that we are children of 'heavenly parents'?

Quote

Many never knew it even existed.  At one point some where even punished for teaching it.

You actually know of people who were punished for merely teaching that we have a Mother in Heaven??? Could you please identify some of these people for us? I'm afraid that I don't believe you.